The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

A Moral Identity Crisis

147 Comments

April 24, 2008 by Kathy McManus

We’ve watched all things personal undergo very public makeovers on reality TV--our noses, our houses, our cars and jobs and spouses. But something more fundamental may have quietly fallen victim to a makeover as well: our moral identities.

Moral identity is how you view and describe yourself in ethical terms--honest, caring, opposed to cheating, committed to doing the right thing, etc. But two business researchers say people with a strong sense of moral awareness can actually become the biggest failures in the face of moral challenges.

In a study reported by LiveScience.com and originally published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, the researchers asked a group of people if they considered themselves moral, and if they would cheat on a test.

The people who said they would never cheat described themselves as very moral--no surprise. But the people who said they would indeed cheat also described themselves as very moral. Huh?

The study deduced that when a person with a strong moral identity is faced with a moral decision, they choose their fate--for good or bad--and then pursue it until the extreme end, driven by their extreme moral identity.

In other words, they justify cheating as a means to a moral end, as in this example given by one of the researchers: "If I cheat, then I’ll get into get into graduate school. And if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor. And think about all the people I’m going to help when I’m a doctor."

Is doing the wrong thing--but claiming it’s for the right reasons--ever really right?

147 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• April 24, 2008 by Kina Barnum

  Doing the wrong thing and claiming it's for the right reasons is never right. For example "cheating" doesn't teach you anything except learning how not to learn and work hard. What good are those good grades going to be when you somehow can't remember where the gallbladder is located at in the middle of surgery.

  Reply

  • July 26, 2009 by David Booth

    Sex, sex, sex. That's all we hear and see anymore, the junk that is put on TV - Inked and all the others. We can't have prayer in the classmate, but there is sex education. The hypocrisy in the church, it's hard to believe, but oh so true. The liberals have and will destroy this once great country. May God save the believers of this country.

    Reply

    • May 17, 2010 by John

      I appreciate your evaluation of the "social take" regarding the church as it is popularized in America. And, may I say that there is much truth in your statement.However, I also depict the absence within your logic. Morality is not a social germ. Morality is strictly a "religious" outcropping... And if the church is as bad as you have insinuated, then morality is the product of social teaching. You have abandond the church's role to moral anarchy.

  • August 13, 2010 by alexandra

    Anna,i think what you said was right.

    Reply

    • August 15, 2010 by gung2x

      its so good????????????????????????????? :pantum:

    • May 11, 2011 by bobby joe

      dude u r awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

  • September 2, 2010 by Cheryl

    I have to agree with this

    Reply

• April 24, 2008 by Randy Yale

  Many cultural critics decry moral relativism. However, the reality is that we live in a world with relative morality. Things that are generally accepted include: killing in self-defense; just war theory; cultural morality of food (in the U.S. eating dogs is suspect, in other cultures it is acceptable). My point is that there are few clear cut issues of right and wrong. I know folks are thinking "cheating is different." I would argue not so much. The post does not mention how many people felt cheating was moral. If it is around 5% then it would signify people on the "bad" end of a bell curve distribution of the population. And thus indicate that bad folks rationalize their actions. However, if the percentage is 20%, then it is much more likely that our societal mores encourage an end-justifies-the-means mentality. Philip Zimbardo has argued that there are three levels of causation for immoral actions: Dispositional (individual) Situational and Systemic. However, the common response to immorality is to blame the individual and ignore the situation and system in which the individual acted. Perhaps people see themselves as moral even if they acknowledge a willingness to cheat because the current systems (corporate, political, academic) allow/encourage ends and not means.

  Reply

  • May 2, 2009 by hank sadberry

    I think you are well educated and over thinking issues due to the education you obviously have. When you boil it down, right is right and wrong is wrong, no gray areas truly exist. Gray areas are a cop out. I love your well stated post. You are the reason we Veterans have fought so hard to protect the right to speak your mind.

    Reply

    • September 2, 2010 by cheryl

      You go tell it like it is

  • July 31, 2010 by Annita Valdez

    Just like black is black, Wrong is still wrong no matter how you want to classify it. And morals should not be protected because the church says it, the Bible instructs us how we should act and how we should percive in our lifes making God our guide his the one and only Awesome God, he created you and me how much more do we need to see to know that God is the only answer for anyone. Our Nation started with Gods guidence and it became a great Nation now that all the imanageble sins from hell that come against it and allowed by our Nation its crumbling little by little. But God says "If my people which are called by my name shall turn form their weaked and call on me I shall heal their land. But most people read instructions if nothing else helps. The Bible is our intruction Guide Book, The Only One.

    Reply

    • August 1, 2010 by CJ

      And your comment shows a complete lack of understanding about morals. You think your perception is the only correct answer and everybody who disagrees with your moral definition is wrong, not just immoral. Moral theories allow for different results to the same circumstances. Both are correct. They're morals. If I believe it is immoral to lie, should I always tell my kids there is no Santa? We all find exceptions to our definition. That's why they're morals. The can never say someone is wrong about their moral decision, only that they may be acting immorally, or contrary to their moral beliefs.

    • April 2, 2011 by mike

      1st and foremost you do not need the chruch for morals as they are generally a indiduals decision though society may look down on a decision if ther indidvdual feels morally in the right society can not change there thought process morals can be taught but if someone who has as society would perceive as bad morals they then cannot not teach morals any better than what they have secondly the church has had some very disturbing trends when it comes to morals it was the church who pushed for the crusades and killed thousands of muslims much like the highly radical muslims of today their religion is against what they do but they find a way to justify what all others say are immoral actions the catholic church in WW2 had the pope bless the allies weapons knowing their sole purpose was to commit murder justified because the saw Hitler as evil. I do lie we call them white lies again to justify the telling of the lie like santa and the tooth fairy. Moraly sex crimes against children are seen as bad and those persons should be punished for them but what if an agency actually found ways to keep these crimes hidden and protected the criminals if it was a govt agency there would be protests and congressman pushefix this problem if it was a corporation they would be sued and persecuted in the public eye but if it is a large church then all is forgiven why? where was the catholic moral outcry against their own church morals are easy to push on too others but hard to swallow for ones on self

    • May 1, 2011 by linda durkin

      Your right about scripture, however you need the Church to interpret it. Self interpretation has led us to a very embarassing 39,000 Christian deniminations that all claim solo scriptura, however only one church was instituted by Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. Have you considered this, even with all of the horrible scandal that has rocked the church, have you ever read what the church actually says about, forming a conscience,contraception, abortion, homosexualtiy, war, etc.... only God could keep a church like the Catholic Church going after all these centuries. It will be here till the end of time. Just like in Matthew's gospel, "You are rock, simon and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". Awesome isn't it!!!!

• April 24, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  Cheating we know is wrong and doing it for what we think is the right reason, to be of help to others, is also wrong. But, in a world where we are killing innocent people, being killed by terrorists, and having to see poverty, and disease everywhere we look, cheating is irrelevant when done for the right reasons. I am a "moral" person but if it came down to cheating to be able to save others or be of service to others, I would have a personal conversation with God and ask forgiveness, but I would do what was best for the other, meaning to change the face of poverty or find homes for the homeless, cures for diseases. Cheating is the least concern when such huge humane injustices are taking place.

  Reply

  • November 18, 2009 by lasharra gaibea

    this was the crac

    Reply

  • May 17, 2010 by marylu Czulewicz

    Inhuman injustices are taking place beacuse of cheating and allowing a false hope. Real hope is truth!!!!!

    Reply

  • September 2, 2010 by Cheryl

    I like the way you put this I have to agree

    Reply

• April 27, 2008 by Ben B

  Why is it that whenever the topic of right and wrong is discussed it inevitably revolves around religion or god or some morality thing?. There is no dilemma. If you do something that hurts yourself or someone else you absolutely know it and you take responsibility and consequences that go along with it. If you cheat, you hurt yourself and eventually others. There is no guilt or shame or some morality issue at play here, you cheated, that it…deal with it. Now I know I there are many reasons why someone might cheat and that there differences in the degrees of cheating etc. etc, but the outcome is unarguable. People can justify, blame, seek some form of absolution from it all they want, but the cold hard truth is cheating is cheating. I have cheated and I certainly don’t need a big drawn out study or some specialist to tease out the reasons of why I did it and how I felt about it. I know exactly what I did and why I did it. I knew the consequences if I were to get caught and I ultimately knew the longer term consequences if I got away with it. I would venture a guess that most if not all people have the same understanding when they cheat and if they say otherwise it would be a lie. And that is a whole other topic of discussion…

  Reply

  • April 28, 2008 by Kina Barnum

    Bravo! I think there isn't any grey area of right and wrong. You cheat inevitably you cheat yourself. And the one thing school doesn't teach you is critical thinking.

    Reply

• April 27, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  If there were no religion, God or other morality thing, then cheating would not be an issue at all. How would we determine what is right or wrong? We would not have issues about conscience, guilt or morality so the entire topic would be completely irrelevant. The issue is the results of a study not an opportunity to randomly judge others. I have a tendency to see and believe the best in others, and I hope others feel that way too, so I would first assume someone had not cheated, before I would ever think they had. I think there will always be a moral gauge about cheating, lying, stealing, etc.and I am grateful for that. Conscience is what tells us what is right or wrong for "us."

  Reply

  • April 27, 2008 by Ben B

    Well I think part of my point is that indeed people do have a conscience and that in general do understand what is "good and what is "bad" because of that inherent conscience. It is a bit narrow to think that if religion were not determining the rules that are already inherent in human nature then it would be irrelevant. On the contrary, repression of human nature and not the initial belief in that inherent "good" has had far more impact on the history and future of humanity than anything else. Back to point, it is exactly that inherent understanding of right and wrong and the impact and consequences of decisions and actions made that drives behaviors. So the gauge that drives the threshold of a decision to cheat, steal, lie or any other hurtful behavior is not legislated or governed by anything other than the desire to find a balance of not hurting yourself or others and the happiness that can foster.

    Reply

    • April 28, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

      I believe that we are born with the innate ability to be kind and good, but as soon as we are born, our parents, society and our environment influence our decision-making and the very essence of our nature...bringing with it attitudes and ideas that influence who we "become". The words religion, God, moral, are all just that words. And conscience, I believe is the "ego" and when we separate from the ego, conscience does not exist, "within".

  • September 2, 2010 by Cheryl

    This is so true if people would just stop and thinkabout cheating, lieing, stealing and how their actions hurt others maybe they would think twice about it

    Reply

    • October 17, 2010 by celjay

      hello ... hello ...

• April 28, 2008 by Mia

  "I am a “moral” person but if it came down to [an immorality] to be able to save others or be of service to others, I would have a personal conversation with God and ask forgiveness, but I would do what was best for the other..." my sentiments exactly.... Cheating, stealing, etc are never "right" per say....but if it directly contributes to a positive then they balance out....you had a bad act you rectified with a good one. Yea, we can be high and mighty and say wrong is wrong, but would you sing that same melody if that wrong saved your life? Yea, there's right and then the not so right, and most times there is no gray area, but, sometimes there is and we must all be open-minded and not judgmental. What's best isn't always what's right, and what's right isn't always what's best.

  Reply

  • March 27, 2010 by Debra Smith

    Hi Mia! I agree 100 percent of what you wrote. I am in a relationship like what you wrote. Yes! wrong is bad but at times it can also save one's life. thanks for your comment in this letter. I know exactly what you are talking about.

    Reply

• April 28, 2008 by Lee Wilson

  Granted, we have come a long way as a people and as a constantly evolving society, but I do believe that right is right, wrong is wrong. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Were his motives good and altruistic? Quite possibly. Is stealing still a violation of the law? Most definitely. I don't think, personally, that one should make excuses for these lapses in moral judgment but, rather, accept that the action was "outside the moral lines", learn from it and move on.

  Reply

  • April 29, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

    I agree with ""outside the moral lines", learn from it and move on." I think that right and wrong is "within" and deciding what is right or wrong is not our place..."without". We have no power to decide what is right or wrong actually. It is not our business what others think about us, it is "within" that matters, we do have to take responsibility "without", but 'within" accepts, so there actually is no guilt. My conversation within.

    Reply

  • May 3, 2010 by Lee Welter, SACRAMENTO CA

    "Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor." is claimed. But I recall Robin Hood reclaiming riches stolen by the ruling tyrants and returning them to their rightful owners -- sort of like saving tax payers.

    Reply

• April 29, 2008 by TheCP29

  We see cheating everyday by our lovely government in ways that make us angry like Vetter, Craig, Abramoff, and yes even Bush and Cheney. How do these guys get away with this and expect our little Americans not to want to do the same? For me it's guilt. My mother was Italian and I lived in a Jewish neighborhood in the Bronx. When one of the neighborhood kids went bad we always had an Italian or Jewish mother telling us right from wrong and then there was the threat; "wait 'til your father gets home". Where is that today? I see 4th graders with cell phones texting the other side of their school. Good way to keep the kid quiet but bad example as to how does one get what he truly works for honestly. I thank those mothers from the Bronx to include my own. I feel little guilt for what I've not done.

  Reply

• April 30, 2008 by Sophia

  It's just a silly excuse.

  Reply

• May 1, 2008 by Kina Barnum

  I agree with Thecp29. My mother would punish me and then say "wait til your father comes home." He rarely spanked me it was his presence and his "I'm seriously not happy with you attitude." Even if he did spank he would walk out of the house cause he felt bad, would come back in and explained that he was sorry and why he yelled or spanked. We always learned something. Sorry if parents would just be there to teach kids right and wrong well then kids will learn. Plain and simple in my eyes. I don't understand why this topic has to be so complicated for everyone.

  Reply

• May 1, 2008 by Kina Barnum

  On another note I'm a religious person; however, I very much dislike people using just religion when it comes to morals. If people would think, use their critical thinking skills other than relying on religion to guide them we might have a more tolerant society. Maybe, just maybe.

  Reply

  • September 2, 2010 by Cheryl

    I have to agree with you on your comment because this is howI feel too

    Reply

  • September 14, 2010 by Tab

    I agree, you do not need a book to tell you how to act. You think the people that wrote the bible, book of mormon, or anyother religious texts follow it to the letter? I seriously doubt it. The truth is not everyone thinks the same way so they arent going to have to same outlook as someone else. Morality is a personal choice and you have to let people live as they please, whether it pleases you or not. I think of myself as a moral person and would never cheat on a test but at the same time i didnt finish high school.

    Reply

• May 2, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  I agree that the parents that raised us were different. I feared my parents until I was a teen and started to see things differently. Even though I was raised in Christianity and was taught to fear God, I still took risks. I wrote a blog a while back about how I tested God, by stealing, when I was in middle school. I see it now as a result of the dysfunction I was raised in but I try to take responsibility for my actions with everything I do. We all make mistakes, we know what is right or wrong, and what consequences go along with it. Guilt is self imposed and probably a side effect of what we have been taught or what we have experienced. If we consider it the "ego" then we see that we are able to detach ourselves from it and free ourselves from the guilt. I heard Wayne Dyer last week on tv, he was on "Ellen" and he quoted the Dalai Lama with, "If every child in the world, at the age of 5 years and up, was taught to meditate for 1 hour per week on just compassion, in one generation, we could end all violence and the prospect of war forever on our planet", just 1 hour per week and only on compassion. I think that the difference we (me) baby boomers see about how we were raised and how we raised our children, alone, is a basis to believe that statement could make a huge, global shift in morality on any level. I think that it is our responsibility to try, on whatever level we can, to initiate change toward a more passive environment, in order to raise the next generation of children without violence and guilt. "And then she silently stepped off her soap box, as she slipped away, into the quieting of her mind."

  Reply

Tell us what you think.